This summer I have made a commitment to reading more and have chosen books that I think will help me become a better leader. A few weeks ago I finished Drive by Daniel Pink and am now halfway through with Linchpin bySeth Godin. I highly recommend both of these book at any educators who is interested about the science behind motivation or overcoming resistance to become and indispensable component of an educational organization.
Through my reading of both
books it has become painfully clear that many of our current politicians and
so-called educational reformers have it completely wrong when it comes to
standardization. Now I have always
thought this was the case, but these two books have not only reaffirmed my views,
but also given me a great deal of concern as we inch closer to an educational
system that focuses on test scores as the number one determinant of
achievement.
Dan Pink reveals that the
keys unlocking and sustaining intrinsic motivation are autonomy, mastery, and
purpose. As a leader this is the type of
teaching and learning culture that I want to foster and cultivate, one where
creativity flourishes, students find relevancy and meaning in their learning,
and teachers are given the support to be innovative. A teaching and learning culture powered by
intrinsic motivation will achieve this.
Unfortunately we are being
forced in the opposite directions. The
current education movement is laden with "if-then" rewards and a carrots
& sticks approach to motivation. If students score well on standardized
tests they move on to the next grade level or graduate while their teachers
receive favorable marks on evaluations.
These are forms of extrinsic motivation and will work in short term, but
performance will not be sustainable as those motivated intrinsically. The same can be said for merit pay. Pink has provided a compelling case as to why
this will never work and this is supported by the research.
Students are not motivated by
standardized tests, as they find no true meaning and value in them.
Teachers are motivated for all the wrong reasons, of which includes job
security or a financial incentive. A focus on standardization narrows the
curriculum and creates a teaching culture where creativity, exploration,
critical thinking are scarce or non-existent. It creates a culture that
students do not want to be a part of and one that can only be sustained with
the use of "if-then" rewards or carrots and sticks. Is this the direction we want to go in? Do we want schools to squash creativity and
reinforce a model that worked will in the 20th Century that will not
prepare our students for their future?
Seth Godin describes linchpins as indispensable components of an organization that are
artists in there own right. These
individuals don’t follow a manual, but instead are guided by an urge to do what
is right. In my opinion we want to
create schools that allow teachers to become linchpins because in the end
students benefit from their creativity, passion, and innovative mindset.
However, standardization follows in the
footsteps of a century-old education model focused on industrialization,
which influences teachers and administrators in a way where the artist in each
of them never evolves. This entrenched system produces students that lack creativity,
are fearful of failure, work extremely hard to follow directions (homework,
study for tests, not question authority), and are leaving schools with
undesirable skills in a post-industrial society. Schools focus more on filling
the minds of students with useless facts and knowledge as opposed to learning
essential skills that can't be measured with a #2 pencil.
Godin continues to provide example after example of how education has it all wrong. Take the resume for example. Virtually every school has students craft one to go along with their college application materials. Students don't need resumes, they need to create artifacts of learning that provides detail as to what they can really do or know. Godin provides a compelling alternative to a traditional resume and hiring process. I have tweaked the business example he provided into an educational one. Instead of standardization, have students make a presentation of their resume and skills learned while in school. Have them defend, answer questions, and lead a discussion with a variety of stakeholders. Does this seem more meaningful and relevant? When analyzing the science of motivation presented to Drive I would certainly say so.
My only hope, and this is
wishful thinking, is that research and common sense will ultimately prevail to
save our education system from future demise if those with influence and power
keep steering us in a failed direction.
Let us learn from the past and create an educational system that
instills a sense of intrinsic motivation and creates learners that are
indispensable.